A sessions court here has upheld the order of a Mahila Court to convict a man for stalking, saying it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that despite a clear indication of disinterest by the complainant, the man used to follow her.
The court also observed “the existence of a relationship between a young boy and a young girl in past was not an exception to the offence of stalking” and taking such an argument could not help the appellant’s case.
Additional Sessions Judge Sunil Gupta was hearing the appeal filed by Sonu Rajora against the order of a Mahila Court in February 2019 convicting him of the offence under IPC section 354 D (stalking).
“This court is of the view that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant Sonu Rajora used to follow the complainant and was following her on the fateful day to foster personal interaction despite clear indication of disinterest by her,” ASJ Gupta said in a recent judgment.
“Accordingly, the ingredients of Section 354 D of the IPC stands proved against him and he has been rightly convicted for the same The appeal stands dismissed ,” the judge added.
The court rejected the argument of the defence counsel that earlier the appellant and the complainant were in a relationship. It said there was a doubt on the authenticity of the photographs provided to the court to prove the two had an affair.
Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the photographs indicated the existence of a relationship, it did not mean Rajora was at liberty to stalk the woman when she was not interested in him, the court said.
Also Read
It said, “The existence of a relationship between a young boy and a young girl in past has not been made an exception to the offence under section 354 D of the IPC. So, this defence is also of no help to the case of the appellant.”
Rejecting another argument about the absence of independent witnesses, the court said “the quality and not quantity of witnesses is material for proving a case” and the complainant’s testimony remained “unshaken” throughout her cross-examination.
The court also said that Rajora had “miserably failed” to prove that he was falsely implicated in the case.
The Sangam Vihar Police Station had earlier registered an FIR against Rajora based on the complainant’s statement.
